Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Just had a huge clean up in here.

I'm so frustrated by the personal attacks and inability to respond to opinions one disagrees with by of articulate debate.

We are adults here and we know that personal attacks are not on.

As much as I've been trying to be much more inclusive lately, we're also going to weed out this ordinary behaviour.

Please take note everyone.
 
Cripptonite said:
Made absolutely zero difference to the game or our performance, but that free kick awarded to Breust in the last quarter I think against Willo was incredibly bad. Obviously it was in junk time at that stage with no bearing on the result so it won’t get the scrutiny it deserves.
Click to expand...

Didn’t think that was a bad one, Willows arm hit him in the face, purely accidental, but when someone gets hit in the face, flops and the ump sees it, most of the time a feee will be paid. We were on the end of some fa out able calls in the first, which of course was when we controlled the game.

Im just getting frustrated at the ones they miss, last nights game, I saw so many illegal hand balls, throws, same against the Hawks, the umpires miss 3-4 then pay one, it makes it look like inconsistency but I think it’s more that our game is purposely to hard to umpire.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Are the umpires deemed as professional this year as they would all have to stay int he hubs? If so it hasn't improved the game.

I feel the biggest problem is the constant changing or tinkering of the rules. We are half way through a season and the main topic of conversation after a weekend of football are the rules and umpiring calls.

The AFL really need to back off, let the game play out for 2 years, then decide whether they need to tinker with the rules. As it plays out at the moment, we seem to have 6 weeks of umpiring, an adjustment, 6 weeks, an adjustment, so on and so on, until we hit finals and then it's totally different again. The umpires really don't stand a chance with the constant tinkering
 
I can’t understand the rules around shepherding players on the mark. There seems to be different rules every week:

I distinctly recall against St Kilda we could not shepherd Cripps to run around and launch from 50 (similar situation against the Hawks when he played on and mucked it up).

Then for Hawthorn’s first goal they allowed the same block for Will Day to run around and kick a goal.

Who knows what the interpretation was in the crazy final 30 seconds against the Bombers when Betts was blocked by two players from a kick out.

It just seems like bizarre make up rules on the run. Who knows which rules the umpires will enforce on any given day and which they will let go.
 
Think I've said this elsewhere, but I reckon the biggest problem with umpires is them involving themselves in 'the spectacle'. A fair portion of umpires consider themselves 'part of the game' I think. Personally, I don't want to see or hear from an umpire ever; I don't wish to know their names, games officiated (give me a break) or know anything else about them. Them being interviewed or featuring in media items is just not required. The best ones are the ones you don't notice and that's the way it should be! I am against them being known, against them being mic'd up and totally against they way they interact and at times lecture the players. Some of the interactions they have are way over the line and what's worse is, clearly commentators are told to put a positive spin on these interactions as well as often using umpires names and adding to their profile. It's no good...

I get the strong feeling that when a game is free flowing and not many calls are being made, some of these umps have an ego issue and wish to impart their will or have some influence on the game and start blowing the whistle. It is frustrating. I also strongly believe they may love 'getting their heads' on TV and act theatrically when it is not required on any level.
 
Cripptonite said:
I can’t understand the rules around shepherding players on the mark. There seems to be different rules every week:

I distinctly recall against St Kilda we could not shepherd Cripps to run around and launch from 50 (similar situation against the Hawks when he played on and mucked it up).

Then for Hawthorn’s first goal they allowed the same block for Will Day to run around and kick a goal.

Who knows what the interpretation was in the crazy final 30 seconds against the Bombers when Betts was blocked by two players from a kick out.

It just seems like bizarre make up rules on the run. Who knows which rules the umpires will enforce on any given day and which they will let go.
Click to expand...

Actually, the rule is pretty simple, which is why I was amazed that it was missed in our game. They highlighted it - albeit for a different case - during On The Couch last night. I'm pretty sure the rule is "all other players - from either team - must leave the area when a player is awarded a free kick, except for the player and the man on the mark".

My point about making umpires professional (and no, I don't think the current situation comes close, given all the other concerns that hub staff must be having to deal with) is that they would get all week to study rules - especially the more obscure ones - review decisions, discuss performances etc etc. Just like players do. They wouldn't have to focus on "normal" jobs and commit cognitive focus to anything other than football, and their place in it.

I can't think of an example of anything where turning professional was detrimental to the performance of the affected participants, but I can think of plenty where it actually caused an improvement. So why would we think AFL umpiring would be any different?
 
OldBlueFan said:
Actually, the rule is pretty simple, which is why I was amazed that it was missed in our game. They highlighted it - albeit for a different case - during On The Couch last night. I'm pretty sure the rule is "all other players - from either team - must leave the area when a player is awarded a free kick, except for the player and the man on the mark".

My point about making umpires professional (and no, I don't think the current situation comes close, given all the other concerns that hub staff must be having to deal with) is that they would get all week to study rules - especially the more obscure ones - review decisions, discuss performances etc etc. Just like players do. They wouldn't have to focus on "normal" jobs and commit cognitive focus to anything other than football, and their place in it.

I can't think of an example of anything where turning professional was detrimental to the performance of the affected participants, but I can think of plenty where it actually caused an improvement. So why would we think AFL umpiring would be any different?
Click to expand...
Would you say the ICC cricket panel of professional umpires are any better than the umpires of previous years? Would it surprise you then than the last 50 over cricket world cup was basically decided by en error in law - which was not picked up by any of the umpires on the ground, or the third umpire off the ground.

I am curious to hear your examples of where professionalism of umpires have made any improvement.
 
ajb72 said:
Would you say the ICC cricket panel of professional umpires are any better than the umpires of previous years? Would it surprise you then than the last 50 over cricket world cup was basically decided by en error in law - which was not picked up by any of the umpires on the ground, or the third umpire off the ground.

I am curious to hear your examples of where professionalism of umpires have made any improvement.
Click to expand...
I suppose - as someone who has suggested that professionalism is desirable - the question becomes, does a professional umpiring corp not have a greater potential for uniformity of interpretation over semi-professional umpires?

Umpires get questioned a lot and their decisions get dissected frequently, but is it done by other umpires or by the right people? Does incentivising umpiring via a decent wage not lead to more people wanting to become an AFL level umpire, leading to more people to choose from?
 
ajb72 said:
Would you say the ICC cricket panel of professional umpires are any better than the umpires of previous years? Would it surprise you then than the last 50 over cricket world cup was basically decided by en error in law - which was not picked up by any of the umpires on the ground, or the third umpire off the ground.

I am curious to hear your examples of where professionalism of umpires have made any improvement.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention umpires specifically when I said that "I can't think of an example of anything where turning professional was detrimental". I was referring to any activity. Would you say that the example you're citing was a RESULT of the umpires becoming professional, or was it more likely something that could have just as easily happened when they weren't?

Despite your example (that I don't know anything about because I stopped following cricket about 20 years ago), I still think it's fair to say, as a general rule, that professionalism results in improvement. And no, that's not to say infallible, it's merely to say better.
 
Gethelred said:
I suppose - as someone who has suggested that professionalism is desirable - the question becomes, does a professional umpiring corp not have a greater potential for uniformity of interpretation over semi-professional umpires?

Umpires get questioned a lot and their decisions get dissected frequently, but is it done by other umpires or by the right people? Does incentivising umpiring via a decent wage not lead to more people wanting to become an AFL level umpire, leading to more people to choose from?
Click to expand...
Most umpires have decent paying jobs on top of the AFL pay. Would have to get paid significantly more to make it worth there while to be full time umpires and then would have nothing to fall back on when they retire.

Not sure what the umpires are supposed to do training full time. How many times are they supposed to review the games.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sector 7G said:
Most umpires have decent paying jobs on top of the AFL pay. Would have to get paid significantly more to make it worth there while to be full time umpires and then would have nothing to fall back on when they retire.

Not sure what the umpires are supposed to do training full time. How many times are they supposed to review the games.
Click to expand...
... because they cannot be full time umpires. If they were capable of having a substantial living as an umpire, there is more incentive society wide to become an umpire; this leads to there being more people becoming umpires, and more people to choose from to umpire at an elite level.

Why do people want law degrees? Why do people want engineering degrees? It's long painful hours at uni and years of bullshit to make most of your money on the other side of 45.

And it's not really an argument that they would have nothing to fall back on when they retire, when that's a valid argument to make when suggesting that we do away with the sport altogether. After all, why is that not an acceptable argument to make for AFL players but is for umpires?
 
TheKITC said:
beyond inconsistent
Click to expand...

The best way to validate this is watch a non Carlton game. The standard of officiating is imo at an all time low.There needed to be an improvement in particular prior opportunity but it needed to be just a small adjustment for those times a player has taken possession takes a couple of steps and is dispossessed and the umpire waves play on.
Liam Ryan was a classic example today where he took possession tried to do something was tackled and the ball dropped out. That should be reward the tackler but the umpires wave play on and the offenders team gets a goal out of it.

it happens in most games. It’s makes it unwatchable a lot of the time.
 
******* said it in this thread earlier in the week. Match was always going to be decided by the umpires. West Coast are ordinary and the Umpires gifted them the game again today. Feel good. Club should question it but we won't as always because we think we're too proud. ******* disgusring performance tonight by the umpires.
 
TheKITC said:
I wish it didn't involve Carlton so people can claim I'm being emotive based on that, but this game is a prime example of the umpiring problem that is plaguing the league.

It's beyond inconsistent, it is disgraceful and has ruined a great game.
Click to expand...
You're a 100% right mate. Just got off the phone to my brother in Victoria and told him as much. Absolute BS. Over hewre in the West you play the umpires too. Been going on far too long. Eagles only clawed our lead back thanks to dodgy decisions.
 
TheKITC said:
I wish it didn't involve Carlton so people can claim I'm being emotive based on that, but this game is a prime example of the umpiring problem that is plaguing the league.

It's beyond inconsistent, it is disgraceful and has ruined a great game.
Click to expand...
I had to turn it off a couple times today, the umps don’t even try and disguise it over there!!

Nic Nat is as protected as Selwood and Dangerfield, he can literally do as he pleases

Eagles unbackable favourites if the GF is in WA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top